In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-20-00122-CR

LONNIE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT V. STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 361st District Court of Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 17-04910-CRF-361, Honorable Steve Smith, Presiding October 14, 2020 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

Lonnie B. Williams, appellant, appeals the trial court’s judgment convicting him of indecency with a child by sexual contact. After accepting appellant’s open plea of guilty, the trial court imposed a punishment of five years’ imprisonment. Appellant filed an appeal.1

See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.

Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw together with an Anders brief.2 Through those documents, she certifies to the Court that, after diligently searching the record, the appeal is without merit. Accompanying the brief and motion is a copy of a letter sent by counsel to appellant informing the latter of counsel’s belief that there is no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response, pro se, to counsel’s Anders brief. So too did counsel provide appellant with a motion for pro se access to the appellate record. By letter dated September 3, 2020, this Court notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by October 5, 2020, if he wished to do so. To date, no response has been received; nor has appellant filed his motion to access the appellate record.

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal. They included 1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support appellant’s conviction, 2) whether appellant’s original guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, and 3) whether appellant’s sentence exceeded the proper range of punishment. We conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel’s conclusions and to uncover arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). No issues of arguable merit were uncovered, however.

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.3

Brian Quinn Chief Justice

Do not publish.